338
submitted 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago) by i_have_no_enemies@lemmy.world to c/technology@lemmy.world
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] 1rre@discuss.tchncs.de 0 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago)

I believe none except colonising space... The others are so far off that we don't even know for sure if they're even possible, what's going to go wrong or whether we're looking in the complete wrong direction, meanwhile you're dismissing the only realistic one in the next 250 years because we're close enough that we actually know how hard it is.

There's something to be said about chasing after things that are impossible as the possible seems too hard, but I'm not enough of a philosopher for that.

[-] hamsterkill@lemmy.sdf.org 3 points 8 months ago

Knowing how hard something is can be a larger barrier than not knowing. But the main barrier preventing space colonies is the same thing preventing ocean colonies — "Why?". What motivation is there to settle space? Exploration and experimentation can be done for motivation of seeing if we can, but settling needs known payoff both for the settlers and the funders.

Asteroid mining is the only current suggested motivation for such a thing. And it's very possible that by the time we figure out asteroid capture, we won't need humans present for that work.

[-] SkyeStarfall@lemmy.blahaj.zone 1 points 8 months ago

Asteroid mining and space industry is a huge reason, and it's the next logical step for humanity, especially since it means we can put dirty industry where nature and life doesn't exist.

There are absurd amounts of resources in space, a lot of which are difficult to access or rare on earth. In addition, space can give opportunities for new forms of manufacturing, from being able to control the level of gravity due to weightlessness, to being surrounded by vacuum. Two things which are either very difficult or impossible to recreate on earth.

[-] TimeSquirrel@kbin.social 0 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago)

You don't need to "capture" asteroids. You mine them in place and build heavy industry and everything you need in-situ. It's a hell of a lot easier to launch a new vessel off an asteroid than Earth. For some reason, people always think we'll be bringing these resources back to the surface of the Earth. That's wasteful, why do we want to throw them back into a gravity well?

We don't even need fancy fusion tech or anything for this to work, regular fission reactors can power things just fine. And the bonus is, you don't have to worry about where you put the waste. Just designate another asteroid in a clear orbit where it's most likely to not hit anything else for the next ten thousand years as a dumping ground, and mark it on the maps.

this post was submitted on 11 Mar 2024
338 points (89.9% liked)

Technology

59674 readers
1980 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related content.
  3. Be excellent to each another!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed

Approved Bots


founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS